Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Institute of Pain (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) sst✈  15:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

World Institute of Pain
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Still fails WP:GNG as at last deletion. Alexbrn (talk) 12:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, as sponsor of a notable journal (Pain Practice), professional accreditation, world conferences, symposia, and workshops, I would consider the World Institute of Pain a clearly notable scientific institution. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Except policy says we need "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Which we don't have, right? Alexbrn (talk) 19:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We've got books, Thomson ISI (for the journal), many professional associations publicizing the WIP World Congresses (or covering them ). This is a clear pass of WP:GNG. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It isn't. What what you say is the best source for "significant coverage" then? Alexbrn (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * When ~2500 physicians gather in one place, that's, to quote, "[a] significant medical and scientific conference". Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Not really. I've been to many vacuous trade shows with much larger participation. So we're agreed anyway: no significant coverage in sources (or have you got one not yet seen?) Alexbrn (talk) 20:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * We agree in the same sense that we agree that I deserve a million dollars for my good looks and charms, and that you'll personally be sending me the cheque. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, so where is the "significant coverage"? Just show me one source. This is basic stuff. Alexbrn (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I just gave you two. I really don't see what finding a third one would achieve. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No you didn't. Link please. (Remember, significant coverage is that which "addresses the topic directly and in detail".) Alexbrn (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Here are a few that might inspire you to get busy helping instead of hindering the project with unwarranted AfDs. Atsme 📞📧 06:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Practical Management of Pain (5th Edition — Elsevier) - by Honorio Benzon, James P. Rathmell, Christopher L. Wu, Dennis C. Turk, Charles E. Argoff, Robert W Hurley (Chapter 1, The History of Pain Medicine, pg 7 forward)
 * cites WIP - Dias T, Latorre MRDO, Appolinario J, et al. The prevalence of chronic pain in São Paulo (Brazil): a population-based study using telephone interview. In: 5th World Congress World Institute of Pain, 2009, New York. Pain Practice. 2009;9:115-6.
 * WHO Normative Guidelines on Pain Management, Geneva 2007, Pg 35 - Annexure 5 Experts willing to extend support in WHO guidelines - - also other mentions about World Institute of Pain.
 * eHospice International Research - International Edition
 * Federation of European Neuroscience Societies
 * Pain Pathways - the official magazine of the World Institute of Pain
 * International Anesthesia Research Society -
 * The Palm Beach Post Health section
 * APS Observer
 * South Florida Hospital News
 * ^^^Had a bit of extra time to do some research so I added a few more references from #4 down. Atsme 📞📧 03:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep It is clear from the cited sources, and the discussion above, that this does not breach WP:Notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaptinkeiff (talk • contribs) 20:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep WIP is clearly a notable institution with a notable journal published by John Wiley & Sons, a notable publisher. Also, Elsevier has listed their 8th World Congress  on their Global Events List.  The OP's comment that it "still fails WP:GNG" fails to be a valid reason.  Perhaps if he would help expand the article rather than wasting everyone's time with this RfD, the project would be much better served. Atsme  📞📧 03:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: Clearly meets WP:GNG. Went though about 500 results and there appear to be members worldwide. Some examples journal indexed with Wiley, and  and MEDLINE, appears to contribute to medical guidelines,has a foundation,  plus other mentions that appear to be outside, third party:  ,,,     Montanabw (talk)  08:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment the sources for the journal establish that the journal is notable. I thought publishing a notable journal doesn't make the organization notable because notability is not inherited? Also, the rest of the sources just mention the organization in passing but don't discuss it. Doesn't that mean there's no significant coverage of the organization? The only source that covers the organization in-depth is its own website but that isn't an independent source, is it? So I don't understand how this organization can pass gng based on inherited notability and no independent, significant coverage in reliable sources. What am I missing? 99.236.126.232 (talk) 19:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
 * On its own, publishing a notable is not enough (per WP:INHERIT). If that's all it did, we could redirect the organization to the journal. However, collectively with the rest of its activities: a clearly notable World Congress, a clearly notable Journal, a 'meh' to 'good' trade magazine (it's received praise from pain doctors, but it's nothing special either), a 'meh' to 'good' professional accreditation (it's not a legal requirement, but it's not a diploma mill type of thing either), it's clearly a notable organization, and is a clear pass of WP:GNG. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.